From
Former Ambassador Dean
Former Deputy for CORDS in military Region 1 Vietnam,
Chargéé D''affaires Laos,
Ambassador to Cambodia, Denmark, Lebanon, Thailand and India
Dear friends and former colleagues:
Having just celebrated my 80th birthday, I feel the need to commit to paper my outlook on the role of an American diplomat. I should add that when I took the U.S. Foreign Service examination more than 50 years ago, there were few naturalized citizens in the Service. I still believe today that an American diplomat''s first obligation is to look after U.S. long-term national interests and not to have dual allegiance due to family ties with another country or religious affiliations. As I repeated on several occasions before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee when seeking confirmation for an ambassadorial assignment, I always believed and was told that I represented a secular state and that tolerance, respect for the law, justice, fairness and perhaps compassion were qualities which Americans like to be known for around the world. In my many years of public services I tried to live up to these standards. I also always believed that speaking up for the truth was essential.Having fled my native land because of Nazi persecution, I became progressively appalled by the Israeli policy and actions in Palestine and against the Palestinian people. But even more alarming was the consistent American policy to support unequivocally Israeli actions and policy on Palestine. I believed while was a U.S. Foreign Service Officer, and today as a retired person, that I cannot have dual values. As U.S. ambassador to Lebanon I fiercely criticized Israeli policy in Lebanon which resulted in my family and myself nearly being killed with American weapons shipped to Israel. I spoke up 26 years ago on Israeli policy in the Near East and I still speak up today about current U.S. policy toward the area which I believe is not in the long-term interest of the United States (nor in that of Israel). t is for that reason, as a patriotic American, who served in two wars and held senior positions in U.S. Embassies located in countries racked by civil strife, that I have put a few ideas on paper. I am sending these thoughts to you in the attachment in the hope that our leaders today will take note of them so that our descendants will continue to be proud to say ""I am an American"" and foreigners will continue to look at America as a beacon of hope for humanity.
Respectfully,
John Gunther Dean
A
problem in American foreign policy: Palestine
John Gunther Dean
In many ways, the Palestine problem is the most
pervasive, complex and dangerous problem in
American foreign policy. It is also the most difficult to address
because it is so deeply embedded
in guilt, emotion and fear as to be almost beyond rational thought.
Americans, both government
officials and private citizens, feel far freer to criticize America,
Britain or France without being
thought to dislike or oppose the peoples of those countries, but most
non-Jews are afraid of being
charged with anti-Semitism even if they are only critical of the
hard-line policies of former Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon. This American attitude is not only demeaning to
us Americans but is not
helping Israel or Jews elsewhere. Israel is no longer, if it ever was,
an international charity. It is a
relatively powerful, rich nation-state. It should be analyzed, as its
own citizens analyse its
actions, in respectful terms. Like any other two states, Israel and
America have national interests
which do not always coincide. Only if the citizens of each rationally
define their interests and
understand what they are prepared to do to protect them can they
correctly order and evaluate
their relationship. Certainly that is how the Israelis themselves have
always analyzed their
relations with America. When Israel saw a conflict between its goals
and ours, it naturally chose
its own. America has seldom done so. At the governmental level we
tip-toe around issues which
have severely harmed American interests. Example: the Israeli invasion
and occupation of
Lebanon was profoundly disturbing to American relations throughout the
Middle East; its policy
toward the Palestinians has stopped the peace process and certainly
promoted terrorism directed
at America.
We have closed our eyes to events which elsewhere
and by other people we would
oppose, in some cases even with military force. Two of the most
spectacular instances are when
Israeli agents set fire to an American government library in Alexandria
in 1954 in an attempt to
damage Egyptian-American relations and when the Israeli air force and
navy attempted in 1967
to sink a U.S. Naval ship, USS Liberty, during which attack 75 American
servicemen were
wounded and 34 were killed. They shot up even the life boats and life
preservers with torpedo,
machinegun, rocket and napalm fire, apparently attempting to ensure
that there were no
survivors. Such an attack by any other country in the world would
almost certainly have
provoked an immediate military reaction. Despite our own fiscal
problems, the U.S. has been a
cornucopia for Israel. We have given to Israel or provided in loans
that were never expected to be
repaid about $100 billion, have given Israel special trade
relationships that in some cases remove
import duties we charge other countries and have subsidized Israel
armaments industry even
when it has thwarted American policy by selling arms where we are
trying to prevent arms sales,
as it did recently with China. Mindful of the danger of being thought
to be anti-Semitic,
American specialists on the Middle East feel inhibited to say in public
what their studies lead
them to think.
Israelis act in a far more egotistical and security-conscous fashion than Americans. Whereas Americans fear to criticize the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the outstanding Israeli scholar Avi Shlaim [1] was forthright in describing the Israeli occupation of Gaza before their unilateral withdrawal. After pointing out that in Gaza the 8,000 Israeli settlers controlled 40% of the arable land and most of the water while the 1.3 million Palestinians struggle to exist in what little remains to them, he commented that the Israeli occupation ""is a hopeless colonial enterprise, accompanied by one of the most prolonged and brutal military occupations of modern times."" A non-Jewish American writing that would have been excoriated as anti-Semitic or even hounded from his academic or government post. This is unworthy of America and is misleading for the Israelis. Knowing that they have virtually a blank check to do as they wish, they pay little attention to American government attempts to bring about conditions conducive to its interests in the Middle East. This is not to say that the Israelis are to blame; Americans are more at fault. The Israelis are merely acting rationally as they see their interests. It is America that is acting irrationally. Many senior and respected Israelis agree. They worry that the main beneficiary of the American weakness is the Israeli extreme Right and that Israel's long-term best interests, and even Israeli democracy, will suffer as a consequence.
[1] Born in Baghdad in 1945, he grew up in Israel, served in the Israeli army and is now British Academy Research Professor of international relations at St Antony''s College, Oxford. He also commented on what we all know that ""American foreign policy has habitually displayed double standards toward the Middle East: one standard towards Israel and one towards the Arabs. To give just one example, the U.S effected regime change in Baghdad in three weeks but has failed to dismantle a single Jewish settlement in the occupied territories in 38 years.""